How the Romanian Abortion Ban Affected Labor Market Success And

CEU eTD Collection Children ofthe Children How Decree: In partial In fulfillmentofthe requirementsfor of degree the Master Affect ed

Labor Health Market Success and Supervisor: ProfessorJohn Supervisor: S. Earle Central Europen UniversityEuropen Central Department ofEconomics Department Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Gergely B.Gergely D Submitted Submitted to 2010 By

the R

óczy

omanian

ofArtsin Economics Abortion B Abortion

CEU eTD Collection schools the after born those among diseases chronic fromsuffering people fewersignificantly are there thatis result inexplicable h a have and more smoke also They change. policy the to prior born children than force labor the Decree the of Children the thoseafter born then t have method rate birth the in rise enormous Ceaușescu Nicolae dictator, an market slightly slightly

resultedin a higher unemploymentofmen. examine to is study this of aim The fbrh control. birth of i gher d

elh outcomes health oe wages lower ieiod f being of likelihood he policy changehepolicy littlea earnmore those bornthan before. h results The

, hn hs br before born those than

, as adults as

sud dce ta frae abortions forbade that decree a issued f hlrn on fe te oiy change policy the after born children of ban ,

sin .

ce in the previous years abortion years previous the in ce Additionally, I provide evidence that the the that evidence provide I Additionally, physically physically , analysis the of have Abstract

a higher chance of being unemployed or out of out or unemployed being of chance higher a ii

h Rmna aoto bns fet n labor on effect ban’s abortion Romanian the

etly handicapped. mentally

, whereas hw ht oe on fe h ban the after born women that show i tee s n fet o men, for effect an is there if , had been had Ti rsle i an in resulted This . I 16 Romania’s 1966 In . srrsn and surprising A

crowdi the primary the

Moreover g in ng , CEU eTD Collection onthis me track. the for invaluableofProfhelp I am grateful for grateful am I

the

essor most useful advices of my supervisor, my of advices useful most Acknowledgements

Álmos M. Telegdy, and and Álmos Telegdy, M. iii

for

Prof essor

Prof

Gábor K Gábor essor

John S. Earle S. John ézdi startingézdi ,

CEU eTD Collection References Appendix Chapter6: Chapter5: Chapter4: Chapter3: Chapter2: Chapter1: List of Tables List of Figures 5.2 5.1 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.2 3.1 2.2.3. 2.2.2. 2.2.1. 2.2 2.1

The effects of the abortion ban on labor marketstatus The effects of the abortion ban on wages Empirical strategy Data Methods and results of Pop shortA history of abortion legislation in Romania Crowding effectresults Crowding effects data and methodology The effects of the abortion ban on health ......

...... Results of Pop andData models of Pop effectsThe of abortion legislation

......

Conclusions Crowding effects extension Results Data and empirical strategy Abortion in Romania Introdu ......

...... ction -

Eleches (2006) ......

......

...... - Eleches(2006) - Eleches Eleches (2006) Table of Contents

......

...... iv ......

......

41 40 39 36 34 34 29 23 20 20 17 14 14 12 10

8 8 4 4 1

v v

CEU eTD Collection Table9: V Table8: Regression results crowdingfor effect Table7: Regression results crowdingfor effect Table6: Summarystatistics of the crowding effectsample Table5: Regression results healthfor outcomes Table4: Regression results for out laborof force Table3: Regression results unemploymentfor outcome Table2: Regression results logfor gross wage outcome Table1: Summarystatistics List of Tables Figure5: Averagehealth outcome variables by Figure Figure3: Averag Figure2: IHS samplesizeby birthmonth of Figure1: Total fertility rates List of Figures 4: Labor marketstatus by ariabledescriptions e logarithme gross wage by

......

...... month

of birthof

...... month - - month birth of ......

...... labor market status outcomes log gross wage outcome outcome

...... of of birth v

......

40 37 36 35 30 26 24 21 16 33 27 22

7 7

CEU eTD Collection 1 provided and legal were abortions II War World caused by waslegalizationpartially the abortions of eighteenroughly years earlier. f (2001) fe used abortion of legalization the after born those that showed (2006) Stephens and Charles pregnancies. teenage have to likely that evidence found (2009) Levitt welfare receive to poverty, 40 been the afterwards. born those for effect lifti that find They 1970’s. the of beginning these wassomereintroduced, and countries stilllimit abortions 20 the in ages modern to order in eliminating by Witch Great the limit. certain a over growing from population their prevent to abortions Chapter 1:

For exampleFor Nigeria

“marginal child” “marginal examine the effect the o examine ound - nte eape f n abortion an of example Another the analyzing studies several are There has Abortion th 60 percent more likely to live in a single parent household, more likely to live in live to likely more household, parent single a in live to likely more percent 60

century. repopulat

Introduction

that that m its practitioners, the midwiv the practitioners, its ost co ost - H

the unt was initiated initiated was unt

However, this trend is fragile: is trend this However,

(the child that was not born because of legalized abortion) legalized of because born not was that child (the

untries banned abortions banned untries e large and sudden drop in the crime rate at the beginning of the 1990’s the of beginning the at rate crime the in drop sudden and large been around been

Europe after the Great P Great the after Europe f ,

the change in abortion legislation in the United States during the during UnitedStates the abortion in in legislation change the or

to die as an infant. an as die to A study by Gruber, Levine and Staiger (1999) showed that showed (1999) Staiger and Levine Gruber, by study A women by the Catholic Church CatholicChurch the by at least least at

es. oiy hne s h eape f Romania. of example the is change policy e cnrle substances. controlled wer born after the abortion ban abortion the after born since the Antiquity. the since g h rsrcin n abortion on restriction the ng

1 The purpose was to raise the number of births of number the raise to was purpose The

and t and consequences lague

there were some examples when the ban the when examples some were there

Another study by Donohue, Grogger and Grogger Donohue, by study Another re f charge of free hey only started lifting the restrictions the lifting started only hey

( Heinsohn and Steiger and Heinsohn up to limit birth control birth limit to tothis day

of abortion policies. Some of Some policies. abortion of T he Greeks often often Greeks he y h sae elh care health state the by 1 eit n Donohue and Levitt . was lifted lifted was

In the Middle Ages Middle the In

a a beneficial a had

1999) and abortionand

would have would performed

were less were . In the In After

CEU eTD Collection 2 abortion the after right and before right born children of outcomes health and market labor the of comparison chronic some disease. smoking, of probability their affected ban the whether check also I status. market labor and wages results. new ban. abortion the market labor and education of level the in increase odd the explains which households, educated w children “unwanted” the ban the After women. educated and urban on performed were abortions these of most and fo 1979), (Berelson 1965 terminated In introduced. was ban the before method use who women of composition the by explained becan result strange This outcomes. labor market and educational betterhad illegal became abolishedafter only th per children 3.7 to 1.9 from increased abortions world. the in policy abortion of terms in countries liberal most the of one Romania making system,

There were only a few exceptions, detailed in section 2.1. section in detailed few a exceptions, were only There

“unwanted” “unwanted” success I 1966 n The basic methodology of this paper is similar to to similar is paper this of methodology basic The Romanian the of effects negative the of evidence additional presents study This Pop by study A 2 their likelihood of of likelihood their ,

eutn i a eomu rs i te ubr f its te oa friiy rate fertility total (the births of number the in rise enormous an in resulting ass wehr h plc cag hd n fet n hlrns subsequent children’s on effect an had change policy the whether assess I

I build on the findings of findings the on build I . After controlling for this type of composition Pop composition of type this for controlling After .

children inferioactually had oai’ dict Romania’s policy policy change

ecommunistfallofthe regime in1989. - Eleches (2006) found that that found (2006) Eleches being physically or mentally handicapped, handicapped, mentally or physically being

, while controllingwhile , for ator, Nicolae Ceaușescu Ceaușescu Nicolae ator,

woma Pop r outcomesadults.r as - Eleches (2006), (2006), Eleches 2 n

from one year to another). to year one from

Romanian aoto a te an contraceptive main the as abortion d

observable background characteristicsobservable background u ot f ie rgace were pregnancies five of out r that of that lot completely almost ere born into these urban and urban these into born ere

and supplement it with other, with it supplement and hlrn on fe abortion after born children

- Pop E leches (2006) found that found (2006) leches - Eleches (2006), it is a is it (2006), Eleches and

of of This policy was policy This suffering from suffering prohibited .

CEU eTD Collection 3 crowdingthe effectincludes Chapterextension 6 and conclusions.presents the data the resultsPopmethodsand andof inthe Romania abortion childreninon the suchborn restrictive regimes. prevalent a has also it population, the to pain of lot a causes only not it already that mind the strengthens It restrictions. that researchers of recommendation abortion of effect negative the This drawn. be still can conclusions the handicapped. mentally or physically being of likelihood born children than force labor the Decree the of Children change that find I

T ranslation from ranslation crowding schoolscrowding in wie e er sihl more slightly earn men while , The paper is paper The results these While and empirical strategy. Chapter 4 presents the results of the analysis. Chapter 5 Chapter analysis. the of results the presents 4 Chapter strategy. empirical and

on average, on the the Romanian Romanian

structured women born after the ban earn less than those born before the beforeborn those than less earn ban the after women born 3

resultedin a higher unemployment of both sexes both of “Decreţeii”, meaning children meaning “Decreţeii”,

r bsd on based are

as follows. Chapter 2 Chapter follows. as before them before paper any

had a higher chance of being unemployed or out of out or unemployed being of chance higher a had

r ut s uh s hs br before born those as much as just or

country is

h eprec o ol oe onr, broader country, one only of experience the a 3 n

a . d They also smoke more and have a higher a have and more smoke also They considering abortion bans bans abortion considering d

i born after the abortion ban abortion the after born t

i o provides an overview of the history of history the of overview an provides n Additionally, I provide evidence that evidence provide I Additionally, -

Eleches (2006). Chapter 3 describes3 Chapter Eleches(2006). t o

ofmen

the long row of of row long the .

very negative effect negative very .

studies should

Also, .

proving bear in bear policy the

CEU eTD Collection the cost decreasiat of a but dramatically, increased workforce industrial the years of matter a In goals. its achieved 1998). (Kligman 1948 in 23.4% from 38.2% num in grew class working The changed. Romania of demography the years of matter a in and controlled, was mobility Geographic countryside. the of collectivization forced the and plans industrialization large individuals out carry of consisting workforce mobile a traditions. or ties family by unconstrained create thus and order social familial 1998), (Kligman world the in rate fertility lowest the had Hungary, neighbor, its like just Romania, time this At1). figure (see 1966 by 2 than lower dropping rate fertility total the in resulted This 1979). four 1965(World Bankcontrol In birth 1992). of form used commonly most the was abortion time this During system. care health state world. the legalized of discretion only was abortion law, by prohibited Although handicapped. born be would child the that chance high a was there T 2.1 Chapter 2: he he

only only A short historyA ofabortionlegislation inRomania According to Kligman (1998) the purpose the (1998) Kligman to According 1957 in changed reproduction controlling in interest The Wor of end the Between , making Romania one of the most liberal countries in te in countries liberal most the of one Romania making , exception

Abortions were allowed in the first trimester and its cost was fully covered by the by covered fully was cost its and trimester first the in allowed were Abortions

doctors Abortion an average of 1.9 childrenanaverage of1.9 perwomen. s were cases when when cases were s

(Kligman1998).

penalized as a misdemeanor, and its practice was usually left to the to left usually was practice its and misdemeanor, a as penalized ngforceinlabora the as of resultfuture low the birth rate. in in Romania ld War II and 1957 abortion 1957 and II War ld

the pregnancy threatened the mother’s life, or when or life, mother’s the threatened pregnancy the ber and size. By 1966 the urban population grew to grew population urban the 1966 By size. and ber The aim wa aim The

out of five pregnancies were aborted (Berelson werefive pregnancies aborted out of 4 hs a a ey hr sgtd oiy bt it but policy, sighted short very a was This

of allowing abortions abortions allowing of s to form the labor force necessary to necessary force labor the form to s

w ere , when abortion was fully was abortion when , rms of abortion policy in policy abortion of rms

restricted in Romania in restricted was to disrupt the disrupt to was

. CEU eTD Collection 5 (1998) plans”. Kligman decided. he’d as children, five or “ as four this formulates have to women Romanian of refusal the understand to him for hard was it why a That’s children. ten what with family peasant’s about a from came He ideas background. his in his rooted But much. very children his loved who father, good a was private 4 short very a in surfaced industry abortion underground new whole discover earlyandwas to pregnancies Dubner and (Levitt conceive to failed regularly who women on tax” “celibacy steep a fined and workplaces, their at women to tests pregnancy toobtain impossible them 2009). Dubner and (Levitt party communist the in position significant a with women to available made suffer parents the of o if or danger, in was life mother’s the when allowed also was pregnancy of interruption children,atleast already had four who wasexpropriate thedid right to determinein orderfamily size itstomeet labor needs population its increasing by Romania strengthen abo The 2009). Dubner and Levitt in who quoted Ceaușescu (Nicolae deserter continuity.” national of laws a the abandons is children having avoids who “Anyone proclaimed. he society,” entire cours the of interruption Party, Communist

N According to the documentary entitled Children of the Decree (2005), directed by Florin Iepan, Iepan, Florin by directed (2005), Decree the of Children entitled documentary the to According amed like this because amed likebecause this

ere 7 dd o eaiae brin; t ut ae hm uh oe oty A costly. more much them made just it abortions; eradicate not did 770 Decree Government Abort 1, October On ions could only be performed legally on legally performed be only could ions

The use of contraceptives was not forbidden by law; it had had it law; by forbidden not was contraceptives of use The to bn a dsge t ahee n of one achieve to designed was ban rtion Ce aușescu Nicolae Ceaușescu issued issued Ceaușescu Nicolae

ed of

gns kon s h Mntul P Menstrual the as known agents, 1966, just about one year after becoming the leader of the Romanianthe of leader the becoming afteryear one just about 1966,

their habit of asking the date of the last period of women of period last the of date the of asking habit their from a serious hereditary illness (Kligman 1998). 1998). (Kligman illness hereditary serious a from e of a pregnancy (Kligman 1998) (Kligman pregnancy a of e

transposed peasant family organization to the level of state socio state of level the to organization family peasant transposed .

then monitor the womethenmonitorthe and f or pregnanciesresulting or fromincest. rape 5 the unexpected unexpected the

4 .

According to Kligman (1998) (1998) Kligman to According 2009)

women above the age of 45 of age the above women . . The purpose of these screenings these of purpose The .

“The fetus is the property of the of property the is fetus “The olice

n n until birth. Decree Ce uec’ mjr is to aims: major aușescu’s 5 ,

eual administered regularly time. Illegal pregnancy Illegal time. 7 that 770

Also, abortion was abortion Also,

family meant were meant family simply become simply

“ obd the forbade all the state the all - demographic demographic Ceaușescu , women , ” .

The ne

in in

CEU eTD Collection o months firstthree the in permitted was previous regulation the under abortion and months lasts nine pregnancy a fact that fromthe results rate birth risethe the in 7 6 which 1967, consistentwith is August 1992the c analysis year. the of half first the in than monthly average rate the birth analysis. my in 0 month as 1967 June treat and it accept rate pro the when legalized afteronly the communist fallofthe regime inDecember 1989. Russia. and Hungary Bulgaria, neighboring of level average the than higher four or three f seen be can it As 1967. in 3.66 with medical practice. connection no absolutely had that methods trying by miscarry to tried themselves complications, for treatment hospital emergency required abortions illegal of 50% estimated An training medical any without people by performed often were interruptions

Pop 4.3. section in discussed further are These methods - has has Eleches (2006 Eleches ) , s Pop As result a As happened in June 1967 June in happened

on on natalist policy natalist took figure years. - ) notes that the six months difference between the announcement of the abortion ban and and ban abortion of the announcement the between difference sixmonths the ) notesthat lce (06 hd ces o essdt, e ol d could he data, census to access had (2006) Eleches 6

of the policy change change policy the of 2

A .

fter T he largest largest he 1971

betweenJuly and 1967October rom rom

This can also be seen in the IHS sample IHS the in seen be also can This 7 effec t tblzd but stabilized, it . Since Since . ubr f epe n hs ape was sample this in people of number figure t . He found that the that found . He et h mte unharmed mother the left the the unfortunately unfortunately

, to 1966 in 1.9 from increased rate fertility total the large number of births continued for about for continued births of number large the 6

ensus data ensus f pregnancy. t a at I have no data to verify it, I will just will I it, verify to data no have I higher higher

inc huge According to Pop to According used by or died (Kligman 1998). (Kligman died or

wasabo level rease in the monthlybi the reasein

i ohr ae women cases other in ; Pop hn eoe 1966 before than

ut timeshigher three trie h month the etermine -

Eleches (2006). Eleches (the one I use in my in use I one (the

on n uy and July in born

- ( Abortions were Abortions Eleches (2006) Eleches Kligman Kligman Women 1998) ,

and rth , .

CEU eTD Collection

November 1968.Monthto June 0refers 1967 F FRT.IN;Country_Code:ROM#WDI http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?q=romania+fertility+rate&d=WDI&f=Indicator_Code:SP.DYN.T definition) Factbook World (CIA age.” each at Source rate fertility given a to according children per born be would F igure igure

2 1 of fertility rate data of fertility rate : :

Total fertility rates fertility Total IHS s IHS ample size by month of month by size ample woma n

: UNdata UNdata : if all women lived to the end of their childbearing years and bore and years childbearing their of end the to lived women all if .

The total fertility rate is “the average number of children that that children of number average “the is rate fertility total The

birth ,

7 for persons born between December 1965 and and 1965 December between born persons for .

CEU eTD Collection hs hr i a ihr hne ht natd hlrn r br t ls ta optimal than less to born are children unwanted that chance higher a is there thus abortions, have to likely more are women disadvantaged that shows evidence States United example For often. most abortion use women of kind what check to important very is It children. of outcomes future the affect can restrictions abortion which through ways it in this to paper. the reviewed just mechanisms three childr on restrictions abortion of effect negative a imply mechanisms theoretical these All mortality. neonatal ( Jaco and Grossman by shown effect, re 1999) Evans and Angrist to referring unmarried, int born wome If development. future mechanism second children of number the when quality, same the of be to children their all want parents since that states theory This 1981). ( model tradeoff quality/quantity policy 2.2.1. 2.2 1990 ady to raise a child a raise to ady

Methods and Methods results of Pop

) The effects legislationThe of abortion

, is that that is , a ifune cids oieooi outcome socioeconomic child’s a influence can o n diin o the to addition In Pop odtos hc cud e en s es hn perfect than less as seen be could which conditions or - lce (06 ietfe a ubr f ehnss hog wih abortion which through mechanisms of number a identifies (2006) Eleches

one who is still studying or willing to to willing or studying still is who one better

is en’s development. Pop development. en’s

. This can have a long lasting effect on a child’s wellbeing. The third The wellbeing. child’s a on effect lasting long a have can This . access to abortion increased children’s weight at birth and decreased and birth at weight children’s increased abortion to access that the the that natdes effect unwantedness n cannot choose the best time to give birth, the child might be might child the birth, give to time best the choose cannot n optimal timing of birth can have a have can birth of timing optimal n h household the in - Pop Eleches(2006) - “unwantedness effect” “unwantedness bowitz Eleches referring to to referring Eleches .

t r he - Eleches (2006) calls (2006) Eleches ( 8 1981

parents parents

, nrae te hl qaiy decreases. quality child the increases ) Pop , Joyce , concentrate on her career her on concentrate - ih nt be not might lce (06 ietfe two identifies (2006) Eleches Becker and Lewis 1973 Lewis and Becker ( s 1987 , and this is how I will also refer also will I how is this and , . h frt n i te child the is one first The ) the combined effect of the of effect combined the ,

large effect on the child’s the on effect large and Grossman and Joyce and Grossman and .

h mte mgt be might mother The hscly r mentally or physically

(Pop

and - Eleches

, Becker

in the in other

The CEU eTD Collection entering after right jobs finding of chances lower had probably most Decree the of Children paper, this in done is it as outcomes, 1967. September negative large sizes class effect into came ban abortion the after just born cohort large very the of part were that Those limited. short the in since outcomes, educational the the of most remove will caused familyvariation by model the in variables these including So ethnicity. parent’s born. was person hav might lives person where locality of type and education, parent’s for proxy good a be might education individual’s an but use, other. each from Pop as resources”, scarce for competing cohort larger “a in results rate fertility the in increase large “ carrypregnanciescomposition ofwomen who toterm. “ circumstances crowding effect crowding effect composition

effect of effectof - Eleches(2006)notes. In In Pop to similarly paper, this In Pop that bans abortion of consequence last The n numbers and chapter 5 chapter a a oe hne fbig ditd ohge euainl insti educational higher to admitted being of chance lower a had crowding

(Pop crowding effect crowding ”

Unfortunately family background variables are not available in the dataset dataset Ithe availablein not variablesare background Unfortunatelyfamily

But when estimating the abortion ban’s effect effect ban’s abortion the estimating when But t hat appears when the fertility impact of the ban is large. This sudden and sudden This large. is ban the of impact fertility the when appears hat Furthermore - Eleches referring to Gruber et al. 1999) al. et Gruber to referring Eleches ” bcue t s h efc o te hne n brin ue o the on rules abortion in change the of effect the is it because , , following the extended framework of Pop of framework extended the following , in schools on children’s outcomes.children’s on in schools were limited. limited. were background, thus removing a large background, removinga part thus ofthe

on educational outcomes of outcomes educational on oes tnct ms o te ie s h sm a his/her as same the is time the of most ethnicity one’s , e a high correlation with the type of locality where the where locality of type the with correlation high a e - Eleches (2006), I try try I (2006), Eleches hs s wh is This the - u te aaiy f h euainl ytm is system educational the of capacity the run crowding 9

t Pop at

effect

- Th lce (06 ofrs fnig a finding confirms, (2006) Eleches . - is lce (06 ietfe i the is identifies (2006) Eleches Pop

to separate these three effects three these separate to

children

crowding can very much affect very much can crowding ih be might - Eleches (20 Eleches - on labor market or health or market labor on Eleches (2006), Eleches

who started school in school started who

es motn. The important. less compositioneffect 06) calls this the this calls 06) uin, since tutions, I estimate .

CEU eTD Collection their of both with lived still census the of time the at who individuals those of consists Pop sample, full the to 1966. and 1965 in born those adds also he which to outcomes,child on crowding crowdingeffect sample the in them including so 1967, 15 September before born those than effect. into following 1967 October in and September of part second the in born were who those includes also sample His 15. September was enrollment Pop (as since true, not is This months.” later the in born group larger much the with year same the in school in enroll to had law, by May, to January from born children all 1967, October to July from occurred (…) effect unwantedness observations. 55,000 about 1967, October and January between born those of consisting sample the on 2.2.2. sinceoutcomes sch outcomes. market labor force. labor Romanian with competing the labor

Data and models and Data Pop

school market, but with time this effect this time with but market,

Pop These children These - lce (06 seiis sprt sml fr siaig h efcs of effects the estimating for sample separate a specifies (2006) Eleches He states that t that states He -

Eleches (2006) uses data from the from data uses (2006) Eleches to estimates. to the grade that grade those born right before them, they they them, before right born those oolenrollment surelydates dono

and the and

of of Pop - Pop Eleches (2006) also reports the results for a for results the reports also (2006) Eleches Also, the the Also, most probably probably most -

Eleches (2006) finds a small and insignificant and small a finds (2006) Eleches only only composition effect composition - his way it is possible to separate the separate to possible is it way his Eleches (2006) Eleches - lce as notes also Eleches

consiste crowding e crowding .

have experienced a much stronger crowding effect crowding stronger much a experienced have d of d These children These might

10 ffect

children born after the after born children

. He writes that “Altho that writes He

te oenet uof ae o school for date cutoff government the ) most probably most have 1992 t influence t one’s health. diminished, since they weren’t just weren’t they since diminished, Romanian census. Romanian

ee optn wt te whole the with competing were ee nold n h mc larger much the in enrolled were

does not influence health influence not does crowding effect crowding

restricted sample restricted ugh the spike in births in spike the ugh abortion crowding effect crowding H

e can mainly policy came policy

In addition In add some add

from the from relies .

This

CEU eTD Collection and heating water). availabil occupant, per feet square occupant, per household and regionofbirth dummies) and child the of sex for dummy child, the of birth of place for dummy urban education, father’s and back family as such characteristics, observable adds also model equation differenceto census. stillwereDecree in schoolthe or career timeofonly beginning atoftheir at thethe 1992 the Pop the of limitation were sample the in school people of proportion large a because regressions market labor the from excluded enr still (ISCO). Occupations of Classification Standard International the from codes occupational on based are categories These professionals). and professionals, plant and workers, craft workers, agriculture skilled workers, sales and service (clerks, skill intermediate (2) occupations); elementary in working (individuals skill elementary (1) dummies: specialization postgraduate). or university and more, or school high school, (apprentice dummies education by measured is achievement Educational activity. market labor and achievement educational Decree: compositioneffect parents.

le i a nvriy wt a nvriy ere r ih otrdae ere were degree postgraduate with or degree university a with university, a in olled Thisis

Pop Pop o te i ws osbe t possible was it them For - - Eleches (2006) Eleches Elech

oneofthe I things believeI canimprove

o esr lbr mar labor measure To . s 20) siae tre id o models of kinds three estimates (2006) es

- Eleches (2006) labor market outcome estimation outcome market labor (2006) Eleches prtr ad sebes; 3 hg sil (technicians, skill high (3) assemblers); and operators calculate

enrolled in universities at the time of the census. census. the of time the at universities in enrolled focuses on two two on focuses

the overall effect of the change in abortionsecond changein laws.of the The overall effect the cnrl o fml bcgon, hs eoig the removing thus background, family for control o e otoe Pop outcomes ket socioeconomic outcomes of the Children of the of Children the of outcomes socioeconomic 11

- specific variables (homeownership,rooms specificvariables t o wtr gs swrg, olt bath, toilet, sewerage, gas, water, of ity by by us - lce (06 ue tre skill three uses (2006) Eleches ing IHSsample.the

Te is oe s simple a is one first The . Those individuals who were who individuals Those ground variables (mother’s variables ground

that the Children of Children the that

is a is associate tl in still major CEU eTD Collection workwere ban likely theless to after Children large. born and positive is policythe change of Pop statistically are results significantand large. as this t on before. f to likely more were average on effect into outcomes educational subsequent 2.2.3. effects. crowding the on coefficient The equation. previous the presen controls of set full the and 1967; in born was person if one value takes that dummy a 15; September and June between born was person if one value takes that dummy a 1967; September and June between born was individual the if one value taking dummy effect drops (2006) Pop ban, abortion the of result a as born children some contain already might 1967 May in born those Since grade. same the in enrolled all are year given a in born those that bec dropped are 15 September after born Children included. also are 1966 and 1965 in born those model this In outcomes. - e fe J after he Eleches (2006) Eleches

Results

rm the from a negative a Only after adding background and household control variables control household and background adding after Only hn siaig h plc cag’ eff change’s policy the estimating When Pop the estimates model third The -

lce (06 fns htte overall the that finds (2006) Eleches of Pop those born in May from this specification in order to separate the separate to order in specification this from May in born those une 1967 dummy become dummy 1967 une natdes effect unwantedness

unwantedness effect unwantedness

finds that just as in the case of educational outcomes educational of case the in as just that finds - Eleches(2006) ause this is the cutoff date for school enrollment, ensuring enrollment, school for date cutoff the is this ause

is large and positive. and large is

h right The

after controlling for the for controlling after

large and negative. and large

rwig effect crowding inish high school or university or school high inish 12

- hand on n 1967 in born c o cide’ lbr akt outcomes market labor children’s on ect effect - ie aibe i ti model this in variables side Children born after the Decree came Decree the after born Children

f h aoto a o children’s on ban abortion the of

n hlrns socioeconomic children’s on Pop

composition effect composition um maue possible measures dummy - lce (06 interprets (2006) Eleches does ,

the overall effect overall the

than those born those than the coefficient the

include crowding All these All - t also in also t Eleches a CEU eTD Collection spre grade, separate a in be to has cohort age each insignificant. co the best; at small is market labor the in effect crowding the that found also He achievements. educational lower large as twice cohort the with school started including variablesAfter family background the occupation skilled low in adoverentire theRomanian market.labor the for As

Pop - Eleches (2006) explains this by stating that while in the schooling system schooling the in while that stating by this explains (2006) Eleches rwig effects crowding s and more likely to work in jobs that require a higher level of skills. of level higher a require that jobs in work to likely more and s fiins ae h rgt in u te ae ml ad statistically and small are they but sign right the have efficients

Pop , - lce (06 fns ht hs cide who children those that finds (2006) Eleches 13

as the one in the previous year previous the in one the as

effect in the labor market the market labor the in

againturns negative. crowding effect crowding

experienced

is CEU eTD Collection and significance observations drops coefficients significant statistically estimating preconception and trends policy.” time the to responses unobserved behavioral other of effect the “minimizes interval are. results the accurate more the zero, month months 2004 and 1994 months data had (2006) Eleches ar only when 1997, for except each person’sfollowing one interrogated were individuals different dataset, panel a beto originallyintended was it Although year. the of end the until ran and January in started IHS the 1998 Since November. in ended and April in started IHS the 1997 In 1995. March Apr between gathered actually was 1994 as to referred data the example, for that, means This year. next of March in ended and April in started gathering data the 1996 and 1994 Between 2004. and 1994 between ran that survey household annual an is It 2001). ( Statistics for Commission National Romanian the 3.1 Chapter 3: e relatively few observations observations few relatively e

Data . +/ ic I s a ersin icniut dsg, h coe m osrain ae to are observations my closer the design, discontinuity regression a use I Since

- The sample size for each year of data gathering is between 80,000 and 97,000 and 80,000 between is gathering data of year each for size sample The dataset The

ue 97. n h IHS, the In 1967). June .

Data This is the reason why I had to make a compromise between between compromise a make to had I why reason the is This , there are only a little more than 14,000 observations for the same same the for observations 14,000 than more little a only are there ,

h acrc o te siain S I eie tre ifrn sample different three defined I So estimation. the of accuracy the

and empirical strategy evolution I use of around

is the the is 500 hlrn on ewe Jnay n Otbr 97 (5 1967 October and January between born children 55,000 of

acrosstimeis not possible.

Romanian

those born right before and right after right and before right born those 62,000 individuals were questioned. were individuals 62,000 fe poig together pooling after u as But Integrated Household Survey (IHS), gathered by Survey (IHS),Household Integrated gathered 14

osre nroe interval narrower a observe I

Pop renamed renamed - Eleches (2006) notes tha notes (2006) Eleches

eas o te s the of because

National Institute of Statistics of Institute National all h dt gtee betw gathered data the

er so year, Unfortunately there Unfortunately alr ubr of number maller June 1967. June h cac of chance the t a short time short a t unfortunately l 94 and 1994 il statistical birth Pop een in - ,

CEU eTD Collection is of treatments abouttwice numberofcontrols the 10,113, of one middle is This 2004. outcome variables health the For explain that model the 0) from different wage gross a had and before week the in worked had employee, was ( 22,177 the estimating for the pure and 15 September only enroll between to had November born those but grade, same the in school in enroll to obliged law, by were, 1967 15 Septemberand 1966 December between born Those the between Decemberandborn 1965 November(18 1968 mon ( 1968 May and 1966 June months (6 1967 results specifications large rwig effect crowding will be significant be will large

sample My for allows sizes sample three the of none Unfortunately

. The smallest one smallest The . why in these models my small my models these in why sample

small +/

40,702. -

June 1967). The middle The 1967). June sample contains 15,354 observations, the the observations, 15,354 contains sample ) are employees are ) from and s unwantednesseffect

. the the It

Out of these only 8,455 ( 8,455 only these of Out

the large the h ohr w efcs ( effects two other the +/ months 12 consists of those born between December 1966 and November and 1966 December between born those of consists wage changes changes wage one year later year one is unfortunately unfortunately

the most accurate, but but accurate, most the

one of 14,570. of one

(whose labor (whose -

June 1967 June . of employees of ,unless the So including them in the sampl the in them including So

15 sample size sample sample consists of only 5,466 individuals, the individuals, 5,466 only of consists sample

I only have data gathered between 2001 and 2001 between gathered data have I only

In e In

natdes n compos and unwantedness (see 1 table small force force ). very sample specification the number specificationthe sample very The crowdingeffect

is defined as those born between born those as defined is only these only sample), 15,580 ( 15,580 sample), status at the time of questioning of time the at status

there is a is there largest sample consists of those of consists sample largest ths middle +/ ) .

June1967).

ob lower completely

sample

is zero. servations

e does not allow not does e midd chance chance

28,404, while 28,404,

to effect ition h ed of end the le separating

are used. are

sample that .

S o in o the ). ),

* Significantthe at 10 percent level for the difference means. in Those born before June 1967 are considered controls, and those born after in or June 1967are considered treatments. Varia in the week The fullsample contains eve 1967) HEALTH EMPLOYEES ONLY SAMPLEFULL SAMPLE Note: Observations Observations O bservations . The The

large before that small

sample contains born those betweenDecember 1965 and November 1968

samplecontains thoseborn between Decemberand 1966 November 1967

and had a gross wage different wage and had a gross from Thehealt 0. ry individualry highPost education school High school Professional training City Female Chronic disease Handicapped Smoke highPost education school High school Professional training City Female highPost education school High school Professional training City Female laborforce Out of Unemployed V ariable

CEU eTD Collection the survey IHS born withingiven the timeframe. The only employees sample includes only those whose labor force status em was

** Significant at the 5 percentlevel forthe difference in means. Controls 1,839 .0337 .0103 2,882 5,244 .121 .349 .387 .538 .516 .337 .165 .445 .344 .678 .456 .107 .374 .376 .548 .518 .139 .100

h containssample every individual

SMALL Treatments 10,110 3,627 .0328 .0179 5,573 .137 .370 .378 .577 .517 .360 .165 .468 .322 .696 .452 .112 .407 .358 .576 .519 .141 .108

SAMPLE

able (18 months +/

(6 months+/

Difference

1 .0076** .039*** .033*** .027*** - - .023** - .022** .018** .023* .018* : - - .0009 .016 .021 .001 .000 .005 .001 .002 .008 .009 .004 Summary

16 -

June 1967)

in June 1967)

the IHS surveythe IHS born withinthe given whose timeframe, data was collectedbetween 2001 and 2004.

statistics . . The

Controls 3,459 .0384 .0130 5,393 9,788 .122 .355 .377 .534 .528 .321 .166 .447 .336 .671 .455 .108 .380 .368 .536 .514 .137 .096

middle bles are definedin detail in Appendix table

*** Significant the at 1 percent levelfor the differencemeans. in

MIDDLE samplecontains thoseborn betweenand JuneMay1966 1968 Treatments 10,187 18,616 6,654 .0329 .0159 .135 .357 .387 .572 .518 .360 .172 .455 .326 .697 .452 .114 .395 .362 .572 .517 .145 .105

SAMPLE

Difference .038*** .039*** .026*** .036*** .015** .009** - .013* .0029 .006* .008* - - - .0055 .002 .010 .010 .006 .008 .003 .010 .003 .006

ployee time the at ofquestioning, worked Controls 14,151 5,036 .0437 .0141 7,736 .123 .356 .377 .536 .514 .332 .164 .450 .334 .664 .451 .107 .380 .369 .530 .511 .139 .094

LARGE LARGE Treatments 14,441 26,551 9,534 .0344 .0156

.133 .355 .391 .568 .516 .354 .168 .456 .330 .691 .447 .111 .396 .366 .564 .513 .147 .105

SAMPLE (12 months+/

Difference - .0093*** .032*** .022*** .027*** .016*** .034*** .011*** .008** .014* .0015 - - - -

.010 .002 .004 .006 .004 .004 .002

.001 .004 .003 June

CEU eTD Collection ofeducation. level highest astheir university or school havehigh who individuals of proportion i (which training professional only have who those of proportion lower is a sample there each In educated. more average effectare on 8 coefficient otherwise. zero year, particular that in gathered was individual the about data if one to equal are These 2004. to 1995 from 1967. year each June for one dummies, after born was person the if one to equal dummy w policy abortion the of impact overall the captures that equation difference simple a is one first 3.2 chronic from diseasesthan suffer them of fewer and handicap, of kind some have smoke, Decree the of Children the of of than force labor the of out or unemployed the of proportion higher a that seen somechronic from disease. suffers whether and handicap, of kind some has smoking, is person the that probability the the of effect the find to try I measures, health of As force. labor the of out being or unemployed being of probabilities the and wages on ban abortion the of effect the estimate

Table 1 also confirms the finding ofPop finding the alsoTable confirms 1 here here

Empirical strategy Empirical

change 푂 푈 푇 I estimate two kinds of equations to capture the effect of the abortion ban. The ban. abortion the of effect the capture to equations of kinds two estimate I be can It specifications. sample the all of statistics summary the shows 1 Table I measures. health and market labor variables: outcome of sets two on focus I 훼 퐶 1 푂 :

captures captures 푀 퐸 푖

is one of the labor market or health outcome variables outcome health or market labor the of one is

the overall impact of the aborti the of impact overall the 푂 s considered inferior to graduating from high school or university), and a higher higher a and university), or school fromhigh graduating to inferior considered s 푈

푇 those born beforethem

퐶

푂 푀 퐸 - Eleches (2006) that children born after the abortion ban came into came into ban abortion the after born children that (2006) Eleches 푖 = treatments 훼 0 + 훼 17 the controls the 1

∙

푎 live in cities, graduate from high school, are school, high from graduate cities, in live 푓 8 푡 . 푒

푟 푖 on + . It can also be deducted that more that deducted be also can It . 훼 ban on ban 2 ∙ 푌 푖 + Within this framework framework this Within the 휖

푖 푌

푖 labor market or health or market labor

ersns e year ten represents ,

and

푎 푓 푡

푒 ban on ban 푟 푖

(1) is a is the

CEU eTD Collection most of the these variables including by So hardest. the women) werehit educated and before (urban frequently abortion 10 anyhow. variation formost of this account dummy urban the because difference a of made much half. in my sample havecut would it missing and was information this times many 9 across constant are outcomes health and market labor influence that factors unobservable hospitals despite in legalthe ( ban were and commissions medical the by society the of blocks building le were ban abortion the by influenced been have might groups ethnic different because ethnicity include I ethnicity. parent’s his/her as same the times g a be might lives person including Similarly, education. parent’s by caused variation the of most removes model the in it including education, parent’s his/her with correlation large background family individual’s the for control partially can I these including By change. policy the to endogenous potentially are variables gender, the represents where characteristics: year dummies. added outcomes.

I did not include household specific variables (whether they had a a had they (whether variables specific household include not did I

This i is

푂 ss severely influenced by the ban, because they were often not considered importantconsidered oftennot were they becauseban, the influenced by severely ss mportant because the policy change had different effects on different groups, those that used used that those groups, different differenton effects had change policy because the mportant iy um fr lc o rsdne n fu ehiiy dummies ethnicity four and residence of place for dummy city 푈 composition effect composition

푇 The next equation incorporates several incorporates equation next The suig ht hs vrals oto fr the for control variables these that Assuming This equation is the same as equation (1) in Pop in (1) equation as same the is equation This 퐶 푂

푀 olwn cnrl aibe: he euain ume, eae um for dummy female dummies, education three variables: control following 퐸 푖 푂 ,

푈 푎

푇 푓 퐶 푡 ood proxy for place of birth. Also, a person’s ethnicity person’s a Also, birth. of place for proxy ood 푒

푂 can be controlled for. controlled be can 푟 푖 푀

n and 퐸

푖 = Florin Iepan:Florin 훽 푌 푖 0

+ r te ae s n h peiu faeok and framework, previous the in as same the are 훽 1 ∙

푎 18 푓 푡 ChildrenDecree the of 10

푒 푟 Sne pro’ euain ih hv a have might education person’s a Since . 푖

control variables for observable for variables control + 훽 2 bathroom, toilet, water, sewerage) because because sewerage) water, toilet, bathroom, ∙ 푌 푖 o dfeet degree different a to opsto effect composition + - Eleches (2006), except except (2006), Eleches 훽 the 3 ∙ 푋 type of locality locality of type

푖 I think these wouldn’t have these wouldn’t think I often , +

2005, 2005, d 휖 푖

allowed abortions allowed 9 .

ocumentary)

hs control These is most of the of most is n ta any that and

. The where thewhere individual for for Roma (2) the . 푋

푖

CEU eTD Collection peoplelowereducated have a average mean than outcome. the the interpret I around, way higher a have people educated and urban that 훼 the remove probably is October 15 September effect January crowding between born those of sample his in even that crowdingeffect coefficient the interpret can I individuals, 1 always − 훽 1

as the as in his model his in some some , composition effect composition

. Pop n h sil nlds hs br i te eod af f etme ad in and September of half second the in born those includes still he and . rwig effect crowding bs ti o te at that fact the on this base I - . All . Eleches (2006) interprets it as the sole sole the as it interprets Eleches(2006) opsto effect composition

my sample sizes contain more than just one school grade, so there so grade, school one just than more contain sizes sample my

opsto effect composition

. presen

If 훼 1 > t.

훽

ht s motn i ta the that is important is What rm h model. the from 1 β

19 the 1

than mean than

s the as

composition effect composition h ctf dt o sho erlmn is enrollment school of date cutoff the o e eaie maig ht ra and urban that meaning negative, be to combined average outcome. If it is the otherthe is it If outcome. average unwantedness effect unwantedness

- coe 16 tee s some is there 1967 October o itrrt h difference the interpret I So

unwantedness

is positive, is se

siae most estimates which , but I argue but ,

fet and effect

means CEU eTD Collection between somewhere women, of wage the in decrease significant a caused ban abortion the that state is it think I this, on Based wages. women’s on ban the of effect negative large between are coefficients The sample. the much are results the sexes separate for effects the at look a take we once But insignificant. statistically are coefficients the and inconclusive is had bandifferent abortion a effectonthe gen two children often more reasons. be to likely more are women that is together sexes both for background. effect composition (2 equation in ban. abortion the after born children of wages gross the on ban abortion the of effect overall the as these interpret 2 table of 5 and 4.1 Chapter 4:

treatment dummy are dummy treatment Th eeffectsof the abortionban on after the leave is over is leave the after Especially in Romania, but in many other countries too, t too, countries other many in but Romania, in Especially - 1% and 1% and First I examine the effect of the abortion policy change on labor marketlabor outcomes on change policy effectabortion the of I examine First r Regression T he effect of the abo the of effect he than

Results ) .

itrrt hs a te vrl efc o te ab the of effect overall the as these interpret I . e g o paternity on go men - 2.5%. For men 2.5%.coefficients For muchthe smaller, positiveare and gvn ht h ue cnrl aibe ae od rxe fr family for proxies good are variables control used the that given , are These

esults of the gross wage outcome for equation (1) are are (1) equation for outcome wage gross the of esults , In columns 2, 4 and 6 are the estimates the are 6 and 4 2, columns In

and then separately for wom for separately then and

always negative, and statistically significant in case of the large the of case in significant statistically and negative, always the

th rtion ban on wages for both genders genders both for wages on ban rtion a siae for estimates n men. This is why I why is This men. n out of the labor force than men for several potential several for men than force labor the of out - wages leave 1.11

20 ad hy r mr lkl t tk cr o the of care take to likely more are they and , percent

훼 ders, and as myas ders,and results prove 1

f clearer

or en and men. The reason for doing this doing for reason The men. and en and

think h three the - 2.29 . For women For .

it makes sense to check if the if check to sense makes it

of percent hey go on maternity leave maternity on go hey

the treatment coefficient treatment the different rin ban ortion jointly wih ons o a to points which ,

the coefficient the is small. is ape sizes. sample in columns 1, 31, columns in reasonable to reasonable

, it, did.

ihu the without

ts sign ts s

CEU eTD Collection *** atthe 1 percent Significant level ** atthepercent Significant level 5 * Sign stand Robust included. always dummies errors ar gathering data of Year dummies. ethnicity four and residence, of place for dummy city a 1967 June the is variable dependent June +/ months (6 1967 November Controls MALE FEMALE BOTH GENDERS Note: The table presents the results of of results the presents table The Note: 97. h lre ape otis hs br bten eebr 95 n Nvme 16 (8 ots +/ months (18 1968 November and 1965 December between born those contains sample large The 1967). and peopleonaverageurban educated is wages,which crediblehave higher a result. the so effect, overall the than smaller always the that factI cannotsomething explain itmean is not does wrong. correct. (a data the with problems no are there and correct is method estimation the if But it. explain cannot I unfortunately and strange, very is men abortionthesurelyfor any ban had effectonwages. that state to mistake a be would it so significant, statistically is coefficients the of none But wages. gross men’s on change positive small a had ban abortion the any, if So, insignificant. ificantlevel at the 10percent Treatment dummy Treatment dummy Treatment dummy Treatment e shown ine shown parentheses.

are considered treatments. considered are

I decided to present them even though I cannot give an explanation, because I thinkI because explanation, an give cannot I though even them present to decided I In di The

the

logarithm of gross wage. gross of logarithm fference between the abortion ban’s effect on the wages of the two sexes two the of wages the on effect ban’s abortion the between fference case of the log gross wage outcome wage gross log the of case - Table Table

June 1967). The middle sample contains those born between June 1966 and May 1968 (12 months +/ months (12 1968 May and 1966 June between born those contains sample middle The 1967). June VariablesAppendixdefined are detail table in in

(.0144) (.0156) (.0109)

- .0086 .0008 .0119 2 The background controls included are three educational dummies, a female dummy for gender, for dummy female a dummies, educational three are included controls background The No (1) SMALL SAMPLE SMALL :

simple OLS regressions. OLS simple Regression results l for

Those born before June 1967 are considered controls, and those born in or after after or in born those and controls, considered are 1967 June before born Those (.0135) (.0144) (.0098) - - .0021 .0169 .0054 Yes (2)

nd 21 The small sample contains those born between December 1966 and and 1966 December between born those contains sample small The composition effect composition

I think I

(.0107) (.0115) (.0080) - .0162 .0048 .0111 MIDDLE SAMPLE MIDDLE og gross wageou No (3)

this ,

the results the

. is

the case the (.0010) (.0106) (.0073) - - .0073 .0173 .0031 Yes (4)

is positive. This means that means This positive. is

with cont with

tcome

), then these results are results these then ),

- .0228** (.0089) (.0097) (.0067)

- .0087 .0042 No (5) LARGE SAMPLE LARGE rol variables are variables rol

ue 1967). June - .0294*** - (.0084) (.0089) (.0061) .0118* .0012 Yes (6)

The ard

CEU eTD Collection IHS table Appendix in detail in defined are Variables sample). (large 1967 June to refers 0 Month 1968. November Figure

3 : A verage verage

oaih gos ae y it mnh rw aa fr esn br bten eebr 95 and 1965 December between born persons for data, raw month, birth by wage gross logarithm Panel Panel

Panel A :

Log wage by month by wage of birth,Log b B C : Log wage by month by wage of birth, Log : female : Log wage month Log by : of birth, male 22

oth genders

9 .

Source:

CEU eTD Collection sole the ef crowding the 5, chapter rejected. be cannot zero to equal are they that hypothesis the 0.4 between lie (they large fairly and positive stat is it and genders, both for effect average of mean adul than beforethose them unemployed born as Decree, the of Children The significant. and large is men.and women for separately it repeat then and together, sexes both for first exercise the do I outcome, 6. and 4 2, columns in are (2) equation of results unemployment. 4.2 muchmorecloseaxis,and to13.7. Y the on value 13.8 the to close points fewer much are there 0 month after but notice, to in seen be can it as women, for But wages. on effect noticeable no had ban abortion the that confirm graphs the males, and genders both for C, and A panel In 1968. November and 1965 December between born persons for

The effectsof the The abortionban on unwantednesseffect 10 10 percent For both genders both For the for results the presents 3 Table logarithmaverage presentsthe 3 Figure o te eae ape te fet f h uepomn i salr hn the than smaller is unemployment the of effect the sample, female the For

As in table 2, the results of equation (1) are in columns 1, 3 and 5, while the while 5, and 3 1, columns in are (1) equation of results the 2, table in As

fect on female unemployment is zero, the zero, is unemployment female on fect jointly .

the overall effect of the abortion ban on unemployment on ban abortion the of effect overall the labormarket status

(by somewhere(by 0.81 and percentbetween from a

panel B, there is a small negative effect. It is hard is It effect. negative small a is there B, panel 23

and 1 percent from a mean of 9 percent 9 of mean a from percent 1 and

first sial isgiiat Te ofiins are coefficients The insignificant. istically gross wage by birth month, the raw data,raw month,the birth by wagegross

ut s n h cs o te gro the of case the in as Just labor

market status outcome variable, outcome status market

s wr mr lkl t be to likely more were ts, Since, as it can be seen in seen be can it as Since, 훽 1

estimates represent estimates s wage ss ), but ), CEU eTD Collection

*** atthe 1 percent Significant level ** atthepercent Significant level 5 * Sign standard errors shownparentheses. in are Robu included. always dummies gathering data of Year dummies. ethnicity four and residence, of place for dummy city a gender, treatments. considered are 1967 June dummy. unemployed the is variable dependent +/ +/ months (6 1967 November ( one Controls MALE FEMALE BOTH GENDERS Note: The table presents the results of probit regressions. The coefficients The regressions. probit of results the presents table The Note: -

June 1967). The large sample contains those born between December 1965 and Nove containsbetween 1965 The and June 1967). born large samplethose December incl also that grade school smaller the of part weresample this in treatments the because effect crowding lowest the samplehas small the the larger ma on effect significant and large a had grades school in crowding the in the results by explained be can This sample. large the in significant statistically and substantial mo the is effect The percent. 11 of mean a from percent 1.7 and 0.5 between somewhere by unemployed be to likely more were adults, as Decree, the of Children The significant. Observed probability Observed dummy Treatment probability Observed dummy Treatment probability Observed dummy Treatment since only dummies are used as independent variables). independent as used are dummies only since ificantlevel at the 10percent

crowding effect crowding For men the effect of the abortion ban on unemployment is large and statisticallyand large is unemployment on ban abortion the of effect the men For

crowding effects crowding Table Table -

June 1967). The middle sample contains those born between June 1966 and May 1968 (12 months (12 1968 May and 1966 June between born those contains sample middle The 1967). June

: (.0078) (.0067) (.0052)

.1168 .0054 .0951 .0099 .1055 .0078 is, the larger male unemployment is. Out of the three samplesizes three of the unemploymentis.Out larger male the is, R h bcgon cnrl icue ae he euainl ume, fml dmy for dummy female a dummies, educational three are included controls background The SMALL SAMPLE SMALL No (1) egression results u for Var

extension. As it is explained in more detail in chapter 5, the 5, chapter in detail more in explained is it As extension. iables areAppendix detail definedin in table

Those born before June 1967 are considered controls, and those born in or after or in born those and controls, considered are 1967 June before born Those (.0076) (.0066) (.0050) .0086* .1168 .0086 .0951 .0083 .1055 Yes (2)

The small The

uded the lower number of children born before born children of number lower the uded 24

.0125** .0090** (.0056) (.0049) (.0037) nemployment .1148 .0906 .0056 .1023 MIDDLE SAMPLE MIDDLE sample contains those born between December 1966 and and 1966 December between born those contains sample No (3)

capture

the effect of switching the value from zero to zero from value the switching of effect the .0139** .0091** (.0055) (.0048) (.0036) .1148 .0906 .0045 .1023 mber 1968 (18 months (18 mber +/ 1968 Yes (4)

9 outcome

le unemployment. So the So unemployment. le

.0166*** .0105*** (.0046) (.0041) (.0030)

.1143 .0897 .0048 .1017 LARGE SAMPLE LARGE No (5)

June 1967). June .0171*** .0101*** (.0045) (.0040) (.0030) .1143 .0897 .0039 .1017 Yes (6)

The

CEU eTD Collection p no is there Since percent. 14 of mean same significant. outcome force labor of 5 being subsequent children’s on effect take to change policy the for year one took it why explain cannot I Unfortunately sample. small the for insignificant and small but sample, b people 5,and 3 force labor of out average mean the than lower a have men unemployment. educated more and urban and rate, unemployment average than higher a have women educated more and urban that means schooltoin their exposed years. larger the by explained be can unemployment on effect larger S 1967. June after wave the in born children of made fully were that grades school larger much the of part were sample large and middle the in treatments the of proportion larger A effect. took ban abortion the , thereno, is ure unwantednesseffect out of of out and ig u o te ao fre s s is force labor the of out eing o bt genders both For the for results the presents 4 Table the women, For on largeoverallban andout effectabortion the the middle of the the samples For If

the the the results of equationresults the (2)are inof columns 46. and 2, I crowdingeffect

control for the the for control

labor forcelabor . As in the previous two tables, the results of equation (1) are in columns 1, columns in (1)are equation of results the tables, two previous the in As .

s 0.8 is . The composition. The effectlargeis and

composition effect composition as adults as o the result that for those who were born later the ban had a had ban the later born were who those for that result the o

present composition effect composition jointly

percent . For this outcome variable, as it is it as variable, outcome this For . . h efc o te brin a on ban abortion the of effect the

rm ma o 14 of mean a from giiat n lre o te ide and middle the for large and ignificant 25 rwig effect crowding second

is positive, while for men it is negati is it men for while positive, is

the coefficients rise to 1.1 percent from the from percent 1.1 to rise coefficients the

labor market status outcome variab outcome status market labor

ti cn e dniid s the as identified be can this , negative percent

rwig effect crowding

,around0.3 percent. n i i statistically is it and presented h pooto of proportion the pr obability of obability

hy were they in in the ve. This ve. chapter large le,

CEU eTD Collection *** atthe 1 percent Significant level ** atthepercent Significant level 5 * Sign Controls MALE FEMALE BOTH GENDERS Note: ofprobability the positive,still turns smalbut added are controls Once insignificant. also but positive, is it men For much higher. force labor the of out being of probability observed once But men. for is it than women for terms absolute in larger much is force labor the of out being on ban abortion the of effect the the average than person. that means This Observed probability Observed dummy Treatment probability Observed dummy Treatment probability Observed dummy Treatment ificantlevel at the 10percent Seenote thetable dependent to dummy.is laborforce 3.The of out the variable

After breaking down the estimates to the separate sexes separate the to estimates the down breaking After In In For

the women in in women urban and educated people might be might people educated and urban Table Table case of of case being out of the laborbeing ofthe out force

: Regression : results ofout laborfor force outcome

(.0048) (.0098) (.0059) women the small sample the effect is effect the sample small the - .0429 .0055 .2316 .1409 .0013 .0031 l and insignificantand l SMALL SAMPLE SMALL No (1)

in the middle and large samples the effect of the ban on ban the of effect the samples large and middle the in (.0042) (.0098) (.0050) .0429 .0069 .2316 .0044 .1409 .0064 Yes (2)

is I

not too largestatisticallytoo and not insignificant take into account that that account into take (.0073) (.0043) .0081* (.0035 .0428 .0046 .2353 .0103 .1423 MIDDLE SAMPLE MIDDLE No (3) than men, the effect for men becomes men for effect the men, than

less

strangely negative and negative strangely

likely to be out of the labor force labor the of out be to likely .0110*** .0171** (.0032) (.0072) (.0037) .0055* .0428 .2353 .1423

Yes (4)

, ,

women have a higher a have women it becomes clear that clear becomes it for .0065** .0084** (.0029) (.0062) (.0036) women .0445 .2396 .0088 .1445

LARGE SAMPLE LARGE No (5)

insignificant

the effect the .0071*** .0113*** .0152** (.0026) (.0061) (.0031) .0445 .2396 .1445 Yes (6)

CEU eTD Collection table force. labor the of out those of proportion the present F and E D, panels and sample). (large 1967 June to refers 0 Month Figure Panel

9 Panel 4 . Source: IHS Panel :

A L abor market status by birth month, raw data, for persons born between December 1965 and November 1968. November and 1965 December between born persons for data, raw month, birth by status market abor : Unemployed: of month birth, by bothgenders

C : Unemployed: of month birth, by female : Unemployed: of month birth, by male

Panels A, B and C present the proportion of the of proportion the present C and B A, Panels

Panel Panel Panel

D : Outof labor: month by force of birth, bothgenders

F : Outof labor: month by force of birth, female : Outof labor: by force

Variables are defined in detail in Appendix in detail in defined are Variables

total who are unemployed are who total month of birth, male

CEU eTD Collection is women force. labor the of those of proportion the present F and E D, panels and unemployed, were that on seen clearly individualseducated lowerand a had chanceof outlabor being ofthe force. percent. 4 of mean a from percent crowdingthe effect since zero. is percentfromth of4.5 is meanthis 0.7 percent). a and (0.5 Again, significant statistically and larger becomes coefficient treatment the variables control the adding After percent). 4.5 of mean a from percent (0.6 sample large the in significant highly bu percent), 4 of mean a from percent (0.4 sample medium the in insignificant is effect employed others.to be than large the during that credible is it period industrialization think I force. labor of the proportion of average out are than that lower individuals a have women educated and urban that meaning is pureestimate the this force, labor the of out being of probability the on effect crowding no is there proves, 5 percent) 23 of mean a from 1 and percent from (around of 23 Itsignificantmeanpercent). bigger becomes (1.5 a

ltl hge ta bfr. In before. than higher little a , the effect is hard to se to hard is effect the , o mnte fet s ag i bt te eim n lre ape.Te overall The samples. large and medium the both in large is effect the men For an middle the In The overall effect of the abortion ban on labor market status market labor on ban abortion the of effect overall The around is effect composition the samples large and middle the in men For

the graphs in figure 4. Panels 4. figure in graphs the In unwantednesseffect

ae A fe mnh uepomn vi unemployment 0 month after A panel of the communist era urban and educated women were more likely more were women educated and urban era communist the of

only after controlling for background variables. Since, as chapter as Since, variables. background for controlling after only lre ape the samples large d

e, but it seems like the average unemployment after month0 after unemployment average likethe seems it but e,

ae C fr e, t s gi es t so te higher the spot to easy again is it men, for C, panel

The explanation is the same as for women, that urban that women, for as same the is explanation The .

28 A, B and C present the proportion of the total the of proportion the present C and B A,

opsto effect composition e solee il rs. In rose. sibly

is around around is unwantednesseffect

outcomes can be can outcomes

that were that

- ae B for B, panel 0.7 percent, 0.7 percent - out 0.1 t , CEU eTD Collection children did)Romanian in c Unwantedness up. grown once smokers becoming of probability higher a have children On adult. an levels. village in living those than smoke to likely more were people small sizes sample three all in 3.4 and percent thefrommean same of35percent. The percent. 35 of mean a from pe 3.9 and 2.2 between is smoking on ban abortion the of effect overall The significant. very and large are sample large and middle the from estimates The significant. statistically SoI interpret zero. results (2),the ofequation the take I health, one’sinfluence can grade 6. and 4 columns2, in are results the tables, 4.3 likea is seems rise. minor there c force labor the 1967. June after unemployment ould also ould o l to

The effectsof the The abortionban on s ta otml odtos o wo rw p n ntttos (as institutions in up grew who or conditions, optimal than ess

The The not but large, are variable outcome smoke the for results sample small The Table It is easy to to easy is It have a similar effect similar a have e paper, by Nichols and Harlow (2003), finds that women who were abused as abused were who women that finds (2003), Harlow and Nichols by paper, e composition effect composition an be seen in panel D and E. For men, in men, For E. and D panel in seen be an 5

of equation (1) are in columns 1, 3 and 5, while the results of equation (2) equation of results the while 5, and 3 1, columns in are (1) equation of presents the results for the for results the presents , imagine that a rough childhood increases the chances of smoking as smoking of chances the increases childhood rough a that imagine might resistantbeless might influetobad

Because I can think of no mechanism through which a large schoollarge a which through mechanism no of think can I Because er than the overall effect. This means that urban and educated and urban that means This effect. overall the than er

, raising the likelihood of smoking of likelihood the raising , unwantedness effect unwantedness

The rise in the overall proportion of those that are out o out are that those of proportion overall the in rise The

is always positive, the positive, always is health crowding effect crowding 29 훽

1 previous the in As variables. outcome health , as the purethe as ,

on smoking is somewhere between 2.2 between somewhere is smoking on unwantedness effect unwantedness

panel F, it is harder to see, but it but see, to harder is it F, panel

nces and nces thus more prone to in case of health outcomes health of case in s unwantednesseffect

or who had lower educational lower had who or . Children who were born born were who Children .

ay unwanted many

estimates are estimates .

to be to rcent

f CEU eTD Collection *** atthe 1 percent Significant level ** atthepercent Significant level 5 * Sign Controls Chronic disease Handicap Smoke variable Outcome Note: Observed Observed probability Observed probability Observed times hundred one table off a jumped and books with loaded 11 needles, spinning and knitting, crochet, hairpins, like objects introduced They abortifacients. other and lovage), and wormwood (like herbs products, pharmaceutical vagina the into substances of kinds all introducing concoctions; different administering exhaustion until both performing repeatedly or heights; from jumping heavy rearranging example (for items heavy lifting these: of few a notes (1998) many to resorted unavailable, legally change The half 1.53 percent. is ofthe policy the of mean pointsa from percentage grew 0.76 handicapped by being ofprobability the change of result a As sample. small the in significant statistically very and enormous data. available take ificantlevel atthe10percent

Seenote thetable dependent to healthhandicap 3.The are variables threesmoke, chronic dummies: and disease. outcome I have heard a story from my grandmother, who was a pediatrician, that one woman took two suitcases fully suitcases two took woman one that pediatrician, was a who grandmother, frommy story a haveI heard

up smoking. Unfortunately smoking. up

probability The overall effect of the abortion ban on on ban abortion the of effectoverall The The main cause for this can be that that be can this for cause main The

Table Table

.0076**

(.0050) (.0031) (.0136) .0237* - .0333 .0153 .3527 .0006 No (1) SMALL SAMPLE SMALL 5

: Regression : results health for outcomes

this is just a just is this .0066*** (.0047) (.0022) (.0139) .0221 .0333 .0008 .0153 .3527 Yes “traditional” (2) observed probability.

30 hypothesis

.0388*** (.0038) (.0024) (.0098) - oe, fe aotos udny became suddenly abortions after women, .0348 .0149 .0029 .3468 .0053 MIDDLE SAMPLE MIDDLE . No (3)

practices to induce to practices the proportion of proportionof the

;

it cannot be proven based on the on based proven be cannot it

.0344*** (.0037) (.0018) (.0101) - .0348 .0149 .0031 .3468 .0044 Yes (4)

handicap

miscarriage. items believed to believed items - .0226*** .0091*** 11 (.0034) (.0020) (.0082) .0376 .0151 .0015 .3469 peaig and preparing ; No (5) LARGE SAMPLE LARGE ped people ped

furniture);

Kligman - .0219*** .0085*** (.0032) (.0015) (.0084) .0376 .0151 .0018 .3469 Yes (6) be

is :

CEU eTD Collection disease. chronic some from suffer to likely less are people educated and urban that suspicion the hypothesis abortion the of effect beneficial enormous an is pers a of probability the reduced ban abortion the that mean would This significant. statistically very and negative still bigger, even is it sample large the in while significant), not statistically zero. is disease chronic of some with people of proportion the on ban abortion the of effect the sample small the ( hypothesis initial the with accord in are results the that fact the but analysis, thorough a for allow not does observations of number low this Unfortunately date. this after born 65 and people. handicapped. this to according too, same the ofnumber large handicappedobserved inthe June sample. post 1967 handicapped.” psychologically and physically were amo frequently were life to obstinately so clung (1998) Kligman cervix. the perforate to quills goose and that the abortionthe ban a that had negati on suffering from some chronic disease by 0.9 percent from a mean of 3.8 percent. This percent. 3.8 of mean a from percent 0.9 by disease chronic some from suffering on

I n the small sample there were 19 handicapped handicapped 19 were there sample small the n . The results of the chronic disease outcome variable are the most surprising. In surprising. most the are variable outcome disease chronic the of results The contained dataset the Unfortunately The The re The

U nfortunately cannot I

composition effect composition sults of equation (2) point to a to point (2) equation of sults

I th n urban and more educated people are people educated more and urban

mdl sml i i lre n ngtv (lhuh still (although negative and large is it sample middle e is ve effectve on healthoutcomes even positive, just like in case of smo of case in like just positive, thinkof 31

negative any explanation forit. ey e observ few very g h goig ubr o cide who children of numbers growing the ng

ban And this can be the explanation for the for explanation the be can this And , exactly the opposite of of opposite the exactly ,

notes composition effect composition individuals

that “the offspring who had who offspring “the that )

is sign.still a good tos bu handicapped about ations

king. The explanation is explanation The king.

born before June 1967 June before born

more ,

which confirms which probable to be to probable the

initial kind CEU eTD Collection afterit1967, which stabilized has level.atthat lower June before months seven occurred decrease the diseases, chronic for As level. previous its in spike large a date. this before born those among than smokers more are there 1967 June after born those among that seen be clearly The graphical analysis confirms the regression results. In figure 5 figure In results. regression the confirms analysis graphical The the proportion of proportion the

Panel B shows that for that shows B Panel handicapped children born, born, children handicapped 32

three

months after June 1967 there was there 1967 June after months after w after hich it ha it hich ,

panel A panel s

returned to returned

it can it CEU eTD Collection defined in Appendix detail in table and 1965 December between born persons Figure

5 : A verage verage

elh ucm vrals soe hnia ad hoi disease) chronic and handicap (smoke, variables outcome health

9 . Source: IHS

Panel Panel Panel November 1968. Month 0 refers to June 1967 (large sample). Variables are Variables sample). (large 1967 June to refers 0 Month 1968. November C : Chronic B

A : Handicap :

Smoke monthof birth by

disease 33

by month of monthby birth

by month of month birthby

y ot o birth, of month by

raw data, for for data, raw

CEU eTD Collection about the education it, in people urban and unemployed of proportion higher a had that grade May also is sample.in dropped the from born was who everyone children, unwanted some contain already might 1967 May in born September. in born everyone exclude to decided I so birth, of day 15) September is date cutoff enrollment thos all that ensure to December, to September from born children exclude I (2006), Eleches lives was their that force. labor Romanian whole the with competing were they them, before right born those with the entering market after right jobs finding of chances lower had probably most Decree limited were numbers and chanc lower a had have might the in of outcomes 5.1 Chapter 5:

wo ee on in born were who e Crowding effects methodologyCrowding dataand

the large cohort large the So in this extension I will estimate whether there is any negative effect left effect negative any is there whether estimate will I extension this in So . This effect might have diminished with time, because time, with diminished have might effect This .

al outcomes than the than outcomes al

In this model children born between 1965 and 1967 are included. Following Pop Following included. are 1967 and 1965 between born children model this In the estimate I analysis additional this In By looking at the s the at By looking consisted of those of consisted

C the Children of the Decree. Decree. the of Children the rowding effects caused by causedby large theschool grade ,

that was born after the policy change had its effect on the birth rate birth the on effect its had change policy the after born was that one

ti i wa Pop what is (this ummary e of being admitted to to admitted being of e

born born

er r atal erle i te ae grade same the in enrolled actually are year cohorts born before them. This still does not tell anything tell not does still This them. before born cohorts

extension betwee

statistics in in statistics

. Crowding effect Crowding Unfortunately the IHS dataset does not include the include not does dataset IHS the Unfortunately n Septe n 34

- lce confirms) Eleches

table mber 15 mber effect of the increased school grades school increased the of effect they were enrolledin.they educational institutionseducational 6 ,

might be present because present be might it can be seen that the largeseenit be that the school can ,

1966 and Sep and 1966 they weren’t just competing just weren’t they which As, the Also, . Moreover

did worse in terms of terms in worse did

ember 15 ember hlrn f the of Children since class sizes class since sne th since ,

te school (the

la ter on in on ter children ,

labor 1967 ose on - ,

CEU eTD Collection *** ** atthepercent Significant the level for in 5 difference means. * the Significantlevel for in atthe10percent difference means. inlarge grade.school the Post schoolhighPost education school High Professionaltraining City Female oflabor Out force Unemployed Variable controlling (without thefor effect effect otherwise. zero 1967, in born was person if one to equal otherwise. zero August, and June between born was individual otherwise; zero 1967, June after born a grade. same September (2006) is equation This model The compositioneffect effect crowding Note: Significant at the 1 percent level for the for in difference atthe1percentSignificant level means.

The sample contains people born between January between born people contains sample The , and , birth of period for controlled have I once ,

he only difference only he

) I estimate

훾 I ,

3 because I exclude those born in September to ensure that everyone is in the in is everyone that ensure to September in born those exclude I because as fter 푂 bcue hs saitc as icue the include also statistics these because , Table Table 푈 the the

Variables areAppendix detail definedin in table almost i .

푇 is

퐶

crowding effect crowding 푂 looksfollowing: likethe the same treatment dummy as before as dummy treatment same the 6 푀 : Summary crowding : statistics of the effect sample 퐸 h sm as same the

푖 compositioneffect is = Enrolled in Enrolled previous two school gradestwo + that I have a have I that 훾 0 훾 + 3 ∙ .113 .390 .350 .539 .501 .131 .094 훾 푏 . 1

표 I also estimate this equation with equation this estimate also I ∙ 푟 푎 the the 3 2 9 7 0 4 6 푛 푓

( born(June 푡 1967 - born(June 푒 April and June and April xedd rmwr equation framework extended 푟

35 푖 )

+ and

) 푖 훾 , the , + 2 repeat exercisethe by - ∙ Enrolled in large Enrolled August 훾 - 푏 4 9 August school grade school - 표 . August 1965 August composition effect composition

∙ 푟 푋 푛 I interpret I .110 .387 .369 .560 .512 .139 .106 푖 ( + 퐽 ) i 푢

) , i 휖

푛 unwantedness effect effect unwantedness s dmy qa t oe if one to equal dummy a is 1 8 9 4 6 3 5 equal to one if a person was person a if one to equal of instead variable 푖 푒

- 1967. − born(1967)

퐴 훾 푢

Those born in 1967 are enrolled are 1967 in born Those 1 푔

as the as out 푢 푠

sexes 푡 and

)

control variables control

푖 f Pop of Difference i unwantedness .019 .0207 .012

the

- - . .011 .0078 dummy a is .003 .0025 born(June 0 0 crowding *** *** *** n the and - 6 2 Eleches

(3)

CEU eTD Collection *** atthe1percent Significant level ** at Significant * Significantlevel atthe10percent parentheses. detail Appendix table in in shown are errors standard Robust included. always dummies gathering data of Year dum female a residence, of place for dummy city a dummies, educational three are included controls background The otherwise. zero August, and June between born people for one is dummy August crowdi The otherwise. zero 1967, June after or in born June muchremaining. not in presented (as section small also is ban abortion the of effect overall not the is because This surprising, significant. statistically not and small is dummy crowding the on coefficient 5.2 of results the presents table The Note: Controls MALE FEMALE BOTH GENDERS Variable - Crowding dummy Crowding June dummy Treatment dummy Crowding June dummy Treatment dummy Crowding June dummy Treatment August 1965 August

Crowding effect Crowding r

- - -

Table 7 presents the estimates the presents 7 Table August August dummy August dummy August dummy 4.1), so if we take out the the out take we if so 4.1),

Table Table

the 5 percentthe level 5 - 1967. The dependent variable is the logarithm of gross wage. The treatment dummy is one if person was person if one is dummy treatment The wage. gross of logarithm the is variable dependent The 1967.

7 9 : .

Regression results crowdingeffect for

esults

simple OLS regressions. The sample contains people born between January between born people contains sample The regressions. OLS simple unwanted of ng dummy is one for people born in 1967, zero otherwise. The June The otherwise. zero 1967, in born people for one is dummy ng

equation (3) for (3) equation 36 ness effect ness (.0198 (.0178) (.0271 (. (.0126 (.0189) (.0178 (.016 (.0251 ------.0332 .0184 .0039 .0241 .0198 .0063 .0224 .0074 .0180 0135

) ) ) ) ) ) )

my for sex of person, and four ethnicity dummies. dummies. ethnicity four and person, of sex for my

and the the and -

log gross wageoutcome Coefficient the log gross wage outcome. The outcome. wage gross log the composition effect composition

(.0180) (.0164) (.0249) (.0122 (.0113) (.0171) (.0166 (.0156 (.0235) ------Variables are defined in defined are Variables .0088 .0013 .0081 .0194 .0149 .0135 .0116 .0035 .0038 Yes

) ) )

there is there - April and and April - CEU eTD Collection *** atthe1percent Significant level ** at thepercent Significant level 5 * Significantlevel atthe10percent included.are standard shownparentheses. in Robust errors for dummy educationaldummies, acity three are included controls background The otherwise. zero August, and June between born people for one is dummy August June after or in born June ( one to but large outcomes. coefficientsThe regressions. probit resultsof the presents table TheNote: Controls MALE FEMALE BOTH GENDERS Observed probability Observed Observed probability Observed probability Observed - Crowding dummy Crowding June dummy Treatment dummy Crowding June dummy Treatment dummy Crowding June dummy Treatment August 1965 August since only dummies are used as independent variables). The sample contains people born between January between born people contains sample The variables). independent as used are dummies only since

Table Table - - - al 8 lo rsns h etmts f qain 3, u fr ao mre status market labor for but (3), equation of estimates the presents also 8 Table August August dummy August dummy August dummy

not very significant (0.8 percent from a mean of 9.9 percent). But once we repeat we once But percent). 9.9 of mean a from percent (0.8 significant very not

For both genders both For - 1967. The dependent variables are labor market status dummies. The treatment dummy is one if person was was person if one isdummy treatment The dummies. status market labor are dependentvariables The 1967. 8 : Regression : results crowdingeffect for 1967, zero otherwise. The crowding dummy is one for people born in 1967, zero otherwise. The June The otherwise. zero 1967, in born people for one is dummy crowding The otherwise. zero 1967,

place of residence, and four ethnicity dummies. Year of data gathering dummies always gathering dummies data always of dummies. ethnicity place four Year residence, and of jointly .0233** .0184** (.0095) (.0085) (.0121) (.0085) (.0078) (.0122) (.0064) (.0058) (.0086) .0116* .0097* - - .1083 .0914 .0000 .0004 .0128 .0998 .0165 .0024 No

Unemployed the

crowding effect crowding Variables are definedVariablesAppendix are detail in in table 37

(.0084) (.0077) (.0120) (.0062) (.0057) (.0085) (.0092) (.0083) (.0120) .0162* .0155* - - .0001 .0129 .0998 .0087 .0080 .0012 .1084 .0916 .0001 .0085

Yes Outcome variable Outcome

labor marketstatuslabor outcomes capture

on the unemployment outcome is outcome unemployment the on

the effect of switching the value from zero zero from value the switching of effect the (.0124) (.0115) (.0175) (.0072) (.0066) (.0102) (.0056) (.0052) (.0081) - - - .0016 .0157 .1349 .0031 .0115 .0398 .0019 .0037 .2277 .0116 .0083 .0033 No Out oflabor Out force

9 .

(.0124) (.0113) (.0175) (.0061) (.0056) (.0088) (.0051) (.0047) (.0076) .0146* - - - .0007 .0234 .1349 .0001 .0398 .0013 .0064 .2277 .0152 .0081 .0030 Yes

April and and April

- CEU eTD Collection forceoncelabor grown up. one affect not does size cohort school that means which sexes. between two the the in difference a is there why explain would that reason any of think stat no absolutely is there women For clear. becomes picture the sexes two the for separately exercise the sial sgiiat 16 ecn fo a en f 08 ecn) Ufruaey cannot I Unfortunately percent). 10.8 of mean a from percent (1.6 significant istically o te u o lbr oc otoe aibe l h crowd the all variable outcome force labor of out the For rwig effect crowding

n nmlyet Fr e i i vr lre n very and large very is it men For unemployment. on 38

’ s probability of being out of the of out being of probability s n cefcet ae zero, are coefficients ing rwig effect crowding

CEU eTD Collection has it because growth, population raising purpos the for abortions restrict to deciding before twice think should country every bans. abortion drawn. be still can conclusions characteristics. individual background ban, abortion the men. after of right unemployment rate birth the in increase large that evidence provide I Additionally, change. policy the after significantlychronicdiseassuffering are fewer people from there that is result inexplicable and surprising A handicapped. mentally or physically of proportion higher change. policy the force labor the of out or unemployed being of chance les earn ban outcomes health Chapter 6:

a verya negative effecton childreninthe born restrictive such regimes. results these While and market labor on ban abortion Romanian the of effect the estimated paper This s than those born before. C before. born those than s

Conclusions

It children of teghn te led peaet eomnain f eerhr that researchers of recommendation prevalent already the strengthens oevr te nlss hw ta t that shows analysis the Moreover,

l tee eut ae valid are results these All

born after the policy change policy the after born

r bsd on based are This paper This

not only cause only not hildren of both sexes born after the ban had a higher a had ban the after born sexes both of hildren gives further confirmation of the negative effectof negative the of confirmation further gives

39 h eprec o ol oe onr, broader country, one only of experience the

even even a lot of pain to the population, population, the to pain of lot a as adults as . On average, women born after theafter born women average, . On e as soe oe n hv a have and more smoke also hey aft crowding in schools, due to the to due schools, in crowding r otoln fr observable for controlling er than children born prior born children than eutd n higher a in resulted es among those born those esamong

it als it of e to o CEU eTD Collection training Professional universities. attend to allowed were schools high of graduates Only training. 2 yearsprofessional of or 3, 4, either attend or school high to go to choose could students which after everyone), almost by (attended 12 Appendix Other Ethnicity Education Health variables Labor market variables Variable

h Rmna euainl ytm uig omns ws raie it egt er o pri of years eight into organized was communism during system educational Romanian The Female City Other German Roma Hungarian highPost school education High school Professional Chronic Handicap Smoke Out of labor force Unemployed grossLog wage

variables

nationality

disease ariables variables

training

classification taken fromquestionnaire. taken classification

1 ifindividual1 is German, 0 otherwise ifindividual1 is Roma, 0 otherwise ifindividual1 is Hungarian, 0 otherwise university (5 or moreyears) level training, schooling professional achieved highest individual’s if 1 schooling achieved otherwise highest individual’s if 1 apprentice school) elementary after individual’s if 1 otherwise that (illness disease 0 life), one’s chronic of rest the for treatmentcontinuous or permanent requires of kind 0 some mental), from suffers or individual if (physical 1 handicap of kind some otherwise has individual if 1 if 1 otherwise force labor ifindividual1 isretired, student, housewife, ifindividual1 is unemployed the at time questioning,of 0 otherwise Logarithm of 1 if 1 if 1 otherwise

Table Table f niiul is individual if individual individual individual smokes 9 : Variable : descriptions

(2 years after elementary school) because of some other re other some of because individual’s

is female, if 0 male lives inacity the at time theof data gathering, 0 otherwise highest achieved schooling level is professional is level schooling achieved highest 40 n

ihr oain Hnain Roma, Hungarian, Romanian, either

at thetime questioningof

olg ( o 4 er o hge euain or education) higher of years 4 or (3 college , foreman , gross wage B. A.

, 0 , 0 otherwise

Independent variables Dependent variables Definition

(3 years after elementary school) elementary after years (3

of previousof month (including taxes)

son at the time of questioning, 0 questioning, of time the at son

military recruit training , 0 otherwise ee i hg school high is level

, otherwise0 s ot ih school high post is mary school school mary

or or , or theof , or out

German,

(4 years (4

, 0 , or 0

CEU eTD Collection (Octoberno. Paper 1757 Cambridge,NBER,1987), “The J.: Theodore Joyce, “ Florin: Iepan, JeanBodin’ Heinsohn 1999), 1(Feb., No. pp.263 Child"? "Marginal the is Who Circumstances: Gruber 1990), (October pp.983 1, pt. 5, no. 98, Economy Political of Journal City” York New in Functions Production Weight Michael Grossman, Programs 1981), (November pp. 730 and Policies Public of Roles The States: United the of Counties “ Jacobowitz: Steven and Michael Grossman, Journal Quarterly ofEconomics,Vol. Donohue onChildbearing Teen Donohue SubstanceUse C https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the and Definitions notes Agency Intelligence Central FirstDecadethe “ Bernard: Berelson, Children “ Lewis:Gregg H. and S., Gary Becker, “A Becker, TreatiseGary S.: Family”,Harvard onthe Cambridge,Univ. MA: 1981 Press, CT:JAI Stamford, State 1970 “ Evans: N. William and D., Joshua Angrist, References harles, ,

” Journal of Economics Political81, no.2, 2 (March/April):S279 Journal pt. ” Jonathan, Phillip Levine Phillip Jonathan, , , , K

John J John John J. III and Steven D. Levitt D. Steven and III J. John erwin erwin Gunnar and Otto Steiger: “ Steiger: Otto and Gunnar

s Demonomanies Abortion Reforms” Abortion

” Childrenthe of Decree Journal ” Population Studies1979),33(July, ” pp.209

. III, Jeffrey Grog Jeffrey III, . K f and ofi

and Theodore J. Joyce: “Unobservable, Pregnancy Resolutions, and Birth and Resolutions, Pregnancy “Unobservable, Joyce: J. Theodore and Romania’s 1966 Anti 1966 Romania’s ” Working paper, Working ”

- of 1007 Impact of Induced Abortion on Birth Outcomes in the U.S. the in Outcomes Birth on Abortion Induced of Impact

- Law - 70. 291 ” M

History of History PoliticalEconomy, 1999,31:3 :

, Research in labor Economics, vol. 18, 1999, edited by Robst. by edited 1999, 18, vol. Economics, labor in Research ,

elvin elvin

and

and “ ger h Wrd atok 2009 Factbook World The

Economics,

” No.116, 2379 2001), (May, pp. S Douglas Staiger Douglas and Steven D. Levitt D. Steven and On the Interaction between the Qua the between Interactionthe On , 2005, documentary tephens

Birth Control: The Political The Control: Birth May 2009May 5, : “ : - - world abortion Decree: The Demographic Experience of Experience Demographic The Decree: abortion Schooling and Labor Market Consequences of the of Consequences Market Labor and Schooling The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime on Abortion Legalized of Impact The ” 41 ,

The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 114, Vol. Economics, of Journal Quarterly The vol. -

aitos n nat otlt rts among rates Mortality Infant in Variations J factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#T . “ r.:

XLIX

: “ : Abortion legalization and Adolescent Adolescent and legalization Abortion

Abortion

(October : “ :

- The Impact of Legalized Abortion Legalized of Impact The 222 . ahntn DC Washington, ”.

Legalization and Child Living Living Child and Legalization - , Economic Rationale behind Rationale Economic 2006) -

420

- ntity and Quality ofQualityand ntity S288, 1973S288, ” Demography 18 Demography ”

” Working ” 2009. ,

” The The

CEU eTD Collection Washington, World Children:fromRomania Evidence Pop and Epidemiology Community 2004,Health, Vol. 5, pp.58, 402No. “ Harlow: L. B. and B. H. Nichols, Levitt, California of University Press, 1998 “ Gail: Kligman, - Eleches

Steven D. and Stephen Steven and J. D. “ Dubner: Bank , :

DC: Cristian “ oai: ua Rsucs and Resources Human Romania: The Politics of Duplicity of Politics The

World Bank,1992 “ : h Ipc o a Aoto Bn n oieooi Otoe of Outcomes Socioeconomic on Ban Abortion an of Impact The ” Journal

hlho abus Childhood Cnrlig erdcin n euec’ Romania Ceausescu’s in Reproduction Controlling : Freakonomics

Political 42

ad ik f mkn ost Junl of Journal onset” smoking of risk and e h Tasto t a akt Economy Market a to Transition the

Economy, 2 ” PenguinBooks, ” 2009 006, - 406

vol.

114,

no.

” ”